Optimal Starting Level

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

So in most games I play in as a player the dm has usually started us off at below lv.5.

Unfortunately those characters often don't make it to high levels and players don't get to live their epic dreams. A friend of mine were doing a bit of shop talk on DnD and decided that levels 1-4 are boring.

He is planning to start a new game shortly, and we wanted to know what you guys think the best level to start with is.

He has a for the most part basic world. He wants to play a world where the enemies scale with the players, never being lower or higher than them.(this includes NPCs such as guard captains or travelers) He wants it to run like the video game fable where the word "hero" is defined as a person who greatly impacts the world... for better or worse. This would mean that all alignments are valid and he wants to see how that would work in a world where that is just how things run.

He also would like us to have a bit of "renown" throughout the world.

[coredump]

I like starting at lvl 1. I like my PC to grow into the "hero" status.

But I also would hate having 'everything scale'. I much prefer a more sandbox kind of world where big bad things are there and you need to avoid them.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

I like starting at lvl 1. I like my PC to grow into the "hero" status.

But I also would hate having 'everything scale'. I much prefer a more sandbox kind of world where big bad things are there and you need to avoid them.

I used to think the same way, but after so long I'm done growing. I wanna be a big kid now.

I've been playing since I was like 12 and have been fighting goblins and ... goblins for so long

[PoeticDwarf]

I like starting at lvl 1. I like my PC to grow into the "hero" status.

But I also would hate having 'everything scale'. I much prefer a more sandbox kind of world where big bad things are there and you need to avoid them.

Me too, but if you want a hero campaign, make you dreams true, then sounds level 7 for me as the best. You have still many things to do, but you are already very strong.

[PoeticDwarf]

I used to think the same way, but after so long I'm done growing. I wanna be a big kid now.

I've been playing since I was like 12 and have been fighting goblins and ... goblins for so long

We are just playing one campaign already half a year/a year, we are now level 15 and it's very fun. But I understand what you mean, many little campaigns till level 5 isn't what you want.

[Steampunkette]

5 is a good starting point for adventurers with history, who have done some relevant low level stuff. Maybe a few ogres or trolls, took down the Hobgoblin slavers, and uncovered the Magistrate's involvement in selecting targets for slavery.

7 is good for heroes who accomplished some important task or other. First quest or fought in the war. Stopped the assassination attempt on the local regent, etc.

After that I feel like 11 is the High End hero startpoint. People known, regardless lf social standing or charisma, across the kingdom and in neighboring lands. These are your dragonslayers and landed knights.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

Its looking like 7 is a safe bet for moderately know heros with decent power

[Inevitability]

I think level three is best. The characters have their subclasses, aren't squishy enough to die to a single hit, and you get to use a wide range of monsters.

Then again, level one and two are so short you might as well start all the way at the bottom.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I would typically start people at 3 if my goal was a long-running campaign. It's a level where you're unique, have your archetype/subclass/whatever, and heroic, but still have quite a ways to go.

That being said, I empathize with the desire to be higher level. I rarely get past 7. Which, coincidentally, doesn't seem like to bad a level to start at.

But overall, I think Steampunkette pegged the levels perfectly, for where you'd want people to be.

Alternatively, though, the DMG gives examples of what kind of challenges characters of various levels should be facing. 1-5 is local, maybe cities, 6-10 is country wide, 11-15 is worldwide, and 16-20 is multi-planar impact. I found those explanations helpful.

[coredump]

I used to think the same way, but after so long I'm done growing. I wanna be a big kid now.

I've been playing since I was like 12 and have been fighting goblins and ... goblins for so long

I have been playing since early 1E..... if the story is good, then it doesn't matter if I am fighting goblins or beholders. If your DM is treating the early levels as simply a grind to get to the 'important' levels, then go ahead and skip them. But you can have just as exciting of adventures at early levels as late. In some ways you can have better ones, since you can't just magic your way past obstacles.

[rhouck]

5th level is a big turning point in character level: 3rd level spells, extra attack, etc. The XP table reflects that the game expects you to spend a bit more time there.

If all your players are experienced, that would be my recommendation.

[Millface]

I've recently been down this road, though on the opposite side (DM). So tired of having to use orcs and gobbos for everything, I want to know what it's really like to hit the party with a pit fiend!

Having said that I still think that a level 1 start is crucial. I wanted to speed things up, so from level 1-4 each session meant a level, regardless of what was done. This brought everyone up in about a month's time while maintaining that fun period where anything and everything can kill you.

I don't care how experienced the table is, I think it's important to have that time to work out how to best work together as a team. Aside from that, the roleplay value increases significantly when you start at level 1. Your characters have been through thick and thin together, you've risen as heroes together.

Optimal starting level is 1, hands down. If you want to speed it up, autolevel for a while, but I wouldn't skip it entirely. Just my $.02

[MrStabby]

I reckon 4th is the best place to start.

5th is a big step up in power so giving players that as part of the campaign makes it feel like a lot of progress. 1st ASI is less often a feat so players tend to increase stats - it does less to differentiate a lot of characters than the ASI at level 8.

Levels 1&2 are a lot down to dumb luck if you die (one critical will do you in often) and a lot of classes get the abilities that distinguish them from other classes/archetypes at 3.

Starting at 4 skips a few of the slower steps, especially good if you don't have a new party, whilst still allowing the feeling of progression from insignificant to mighty.

I also like this level for backgrounds. Without starting at least some way from the bottom, no character can have a backstory that would imply character levels. If you have some kind of bad guy after you - for example- the implication that somehow you crossed them successfully before is less credible if you are a level 1 character. Sure this can happen through gameplay, but that then means the whole group has much more similar backstories.

[Millface]

I also like this level for backgrounds. Without starting at least some way from the bottom, no character can have a backstory that would imply character levels. If you have some kind of bad guy after you - for example- the implication that somehow you crossed them successfully before is less credible if you are a level 1 character. Sure this can happen through gameplay, but that then means the whole group has much more similar backstories.


I like the backstories for my characters to have little to do with time spent in their class. You should be able to have a full and rich backstory that includes your life before you ever picked up a sword. Starting from childhood and leading up to why you picked up the sword.

Allowing the majority of a backstory to be previous adventures takes alot from the person your character is, our characters should be SO much more than the classes they choose. Forcing backstories that don't include much of their time as a class really brings out the true personalities in your PCs.

As far as it being dumb luck? I typically agree. I usually adjust gameplay to that a little. For example, in my next campaign the party is joining a secret military organization and upon entry will all be tested so they can be properly placed. This will be the entirety of their first level. Controlled tests are just one of many ways to have fun with lower levels.

[Theodoxus]

My first 5th Ed campaign was a converted Skulls & Shackles Pathfinder game, and the players were already 7th level. It worked well enough.

I've played a couple of games at 1st level, going to 4th in one, and just a single session for the other. I agree with the assessment that that's pretty boring and less fun.

I'm running a new game, but it's for complete newbs, so I started at 1st, but accelerating the progress - they'll be leveling once a session until 4th. This is more for the benefit of the 1 experienced player, but the newbs seems to grok the game well enough that I don't have to drag out their levels.

I'm also playing in a current game where we started at 5th, and in 4 sessions have progressed to 7th. I'm enjoying the character development - we were thrown together in a town being raided - each of us arrived there separately, on different development paths and reasons to be in this specific town. But ended up depending on each other to survive the attack and motivated to find the reasons behind it. It's been fun - we're all playing different characters than we normally do; but even the full classed characters (we have a bard and paladin who are straight) aren't overshadowing the multiclassed (Fighter 1/Warlock 6 and Cleric 4/Rogue 3) characters. It's been eye-opening how resilient the system is, even after I DM'd the S&S game to 10th level.

[zinycor]

I think it mainly depends on how familiar you are with the system that you are playing with. If you are already familiar with the way 5th edition works and the features the many classes get, then you could start at any level if you feel so.

Just don't get new players to start at high levels, much time will be lost, and many strategies will be wonky and the encounters won't be forgiving

[LaserFace]

My group has had an interesting level experience.

At my encouragement we started at level 1, but we eventually realized that the characters weren't very distinct. It seems levels 1-2 are best for folks who are entirely new to D&D, and might want to get into the swing of things before learning more advanced abilities. But, it didn't exactly hurt us to begin at level 1; to my knowledge we were all having fun regardless.

Because we mostly had a hold on things, when it came time to transition from level 1 to 2, we just skipped straight to 3. Level 3 seems solid because every class is coming into archetypes and other defining abilities, but still have a lot of room for growth.

I think allowing for characters to develop over the course of a long-term campaign is vital to game health. You could probably start higher; maybe level 5 (or the start of another tier) is doable because despite having some pretty hefty powers, you still have somewhere to go. But, I'm really fond of where things stood at level 3, so that's probably where I'll begin games in the future (unless we are playing a shorter campaign).

[Sigreid]

Its looking like 7 is a safe bet for moderately know heros with decent power

You could also get the best of both worlds. Do a single session at level one to set the character's tone. Fast-forward and do one or 2 sessions at 5, and then skip to 7+. This would be just to give the where did they come from and why are they heroes or villains background. It would also let the players get a feel for their characters at a couple of checkpoints.

[DireSickFish]

I'm with the others that think level 3 is the best level. All classes get something character defining at or by that level. They have enough uniqueness to stand out and aren't going to get instakilled if the dice don't go there way. It also comes before the first ASI so they have time to get a feel for the character before deciding if they want a feat or ASI.

Having a subclass already really fleshes out a character concept a lot of times.

[Bubzors]

I am all about level 3 starting point. You get archetype, level 2 spells and still can grow a lot. I am not fond of high level play at all so that may skew it a bit.

In the 8 years or so my group has been playing together, the highest level we ever got to was 15. Levels 16-20 hold no interest for me. I like campaigns and stories that are grounded in real life problems and personal stories. That last tier of levels has too much super hero/plane traveling/world ending powers for my tatse.

Also the level of power PCs start to have make it a bit more difficult to come up with good encounters that aren't either trivialize or too hard.

[MadGrady]

Our group loves to start in the 6-8 realm, and play to about 10-12.

6-8 gets you most of your core class abilities, some great spells, and at least 1 ASI.

HP is still low enough (usually below 100, depending on HD and Con modifiers), so players are still somewhat vulnerable, and it allows me to throw a couple of bigger baddies at them without fear of immediate TPK.

We get bored easily, and our "campaigns" are usually only 6-9 games long, before we want to try out other things. So we level fairly quickly (use milestone method, and typically level every 2 games).

We have found this works pretty well for us.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

I think it mainly depends on how familiar you are with the system that you are playing with. If you are already familiar with the way 5th edition works and the features the many classes get, then you could start at any level if you feel so.

Just don't get new players to start at high levels, much time will be lost, and many strategies will be wonky and the encounters won't be forgiving

Everyone at the table is very aquainted with 5e and the system. And are all competent players with experience.

[Knaight]

For the premise, 5 sounds about right. Having other characters scale for no reason (e.g. guards) kind of offsets that though.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

For the premise, 5 sounds about right. Having other characters scale for no reason (e.g. guards) kind of offsets that though.

Not scaling in the sense of all guards/guard captains could 1v5 the party like a boss fight.

Rather the force goes up in numbers as to challenge players if they say, "you know what I like this town" and seige it.

As for travelers and the such it is his game and we haven't talked on how singular scales will be handled, but that's an interesting question. How should you scale a world of heros, because other parties like ours exist in the world.

[Joe the Rat]

Unless you have a reason to start fresh, or are specifically running a high power game, my preference would be to come in at the 3-5 range.

3: By this point, every class has made their specialty selections. You can EK or OoV or Abjururge or Bear Druid it up, part-casters have their spells, etc.

4: For single-class characters, ASIs. If you have a feat-dependent concept, you can run it without having to have it be a human feat-dependent concept.

5: Up and running. Warrior-type classes get Extra attack. Full casters get their 3rd level spells, many of which are iconic (fireball) or essential to a concept (animate dead on a necromancer). MC Dips may have their specialties selected (if they go that far into the class). You also have the proficiency bonus go up to +3.


My personal pick would be starting half-way through 4. It's a shorter slog to get to 5, but the tier change makes for a decent payoff for the level-up.

[Milo v3]

My group is more used to over the top levels of power than 5e generally provides, so we're actually thinking of starting at 10th level.

[ghost_warlock]

At my encouragement we started at level 1, but we eventually realized that the characters weren't very distinct. It seems levels 1-2 are best for folks who are entirely new to D&D, and might want to get into the swing of things before learning more advanced abilities.

Because we mostly had a hold on things, when it came time to transition from level 1 to 2, we just skipped straight to 3. Level 3 seems solid because every class is coming into archetypes and other defining abilities, but still have a lot of room for growth.

I think allowing for characters to develop over the course of a long-term campaign is vital to game health. You could probably start higher; maybe level 5 (or the start of another tier) is doable because despite having some pretty hefty powers, you still have somewhere to go. But, I'm really fond of where things stood at level 3, so that's probably where I'll begin games in the future (unless we are playing a shorter campaign).

Pretty much this, largely dependent on the type of campaign the group wants to play.

Even if levels one and two are a single session apiece, those are two sessions you could have been playing the actual campaign rather than the 'prelude.' It's perfectly fine to sum up the first few levels in your backstory and start at level 3+.

After playing god only knows how many seasons of Encounters I'm nauseated by continually starting over starting at first level. Let me know when you get out of the shire and I'll meet up with the group at the Prancing Pony.

[Morcleon]

My group is more used to over the top levels of power than 5e generally provides, so we're actually thinking of starting at 10th level.

Level 10 is probably the minimum I'd be willing to start at for a 5e game unless it's a particularly special game, as most lower things don't offer the same level of power that I enjoy having in a character.

[Yagyujubei]

yeah, 3 5 or 7 are the way to go...also possibly 11 if you a really high level campaign

[spartan_ah]

As a DM I hated the dirst levels. It limits your creativity to goblins and maybe ogres.
I prefer 5th or 7th level characters in order to maintain my interest in more unique and fantasy size monsters and encounters.
The first few levels are boring and minimize the versatility I like having when I design an adventure.

[Atalas]

As a DM I hated the dirst levels. It limits your creativity to goblins and maybe ogres.
I prefer 5th or 7th level characters in order to maintain my interest in more unique and fantasy size monsters and encounters.
The first few levels are boring and minimize the versatility I like having when I design an adventure.

5th level is fairly solid. all the classes get some nice stuff, multi-class either gets their archetype or their first AB, it's all-around fun. And with experienced players, you can throw some much stronger stuff at them with less risk of them being slaughtered. Or just tease them facing something just out of their depth. I started 5e in a campaign as a level 4 character with one other player, joining a group of level 3 player's who were halfway between levels. Sequel campaign to that (we kickstarted the apocalypse on accident. At level FIVE. World was rebuilt, and we're having fun with the new world) we all started at level 3, and we're now level 5. We just moved from monitoring xp to auto-leveling after important events because xp will take way too long for us to get to things, and our DM knows he's moving next year.

[FabulousFizban]

i like starting at level 2 or 3. Prevents instant death syndrome, and most classes don't get anything between levels 1 and 2. So by starting at 2, when you level you get new abilities and it feels like leveling.

[dropbear8mybaby]

The first three levels go by very quickly. I think they're important to teach players that they're not invulnerable and need to be cautious. Even veteran players tend to forget this.

[CNagy]

I like starting in low levels; 1-4, usually depending on the relative age of the party. But I also have my players create higher level versions of the same characters--usually 8th level, 11th level, and 15th level. This lets me run one-shots at different levels with a party whose members have some shared history.

[Logosloki]

Level 1 for intrigue,low magic and some one shots or rainy day games. Level 5 when it's a campaign where the party is known and knows each other. I like level 5 as it means both single and multi-class concepts begin to time together.